Thursday, December 1, 2016

I remember seeing that Pongal Test at Chepauk in
Jan 1977. Critics booed India for their lacklustre performance.
Those were the days when Test matches had a rest day !

In that Test no.
793, England opened with Dennis Amiss and Bob Woolmer who was born in Kanpur
and later died in Jamaica mysteriously during WC 2007, when he was the coach of
Pakistan. Tony Greig was the captain - England were all out for 262. Bishan
Bedi took 4; Madanlal and Prasanna 2 apiece. India could muster only 164
– Lever took 5/59. England were bowled out for 185 [Chandra took 5/50; Prasanna
4/55] and chasing 284, Indians were bundled out for 83 – Willis 3/18 and
Underwood 4/28 inflicting the damage.

Andre Agassi brought to fore
what widely was a wrong perception – that men do not cry ! ~ and he is not alone for sure, when it comes
reaction after losing !!

After that thrashing at Vizag
in the 2nd Test, British Press reacted with attempts to vilify the
Indian skipper Virat Kohli of ball-tampering.
Serious charges, silly attempt ! by producing inconclusive evidence to
show that Kohli used the residue of a sweet in his mouth to shine the ball.
They have claimed that Kohli put his hands deep in his mouth, and then shined
one side of the ball, thereby breaking the law.
Nobody is saying that using a bottle-top, or even a fingernail, to
change the condition of a ball is right but it becomes farcical when mints
become an enemy of the game. The ICC have effectively banned tic-tacs and
polos. England knows it all too well –
as in Australia, English Marcus Trecothick's admitted habit of sucking
on a Murray Mint while he was shining the ball during the fabled 2005 Ashes. There has been no official charge and at best
this be dismissed as finding solace someway hiding their loss !!

Down under, South Africa's
captain Faf du Plessis has been found guilty of ball-tampering and fined his
entire match fee from the Hobart Test, but will be free to play in Adelaide
this week. The charge, laid by ICC chief executive David Richardson, related to
clause 2.2.9 of the ICC's Code of Conduct, which deals with "changing the
condition of the ball" in breach of the Laws of Cricket. The Laws of
Cricket, in turn, allow that players may "polish the ball provided that no
artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time". This was a charge during Hobart test, Du Plessis pleaded not guilty to the charge
and faced a lengthy hearing before ICC match referee Andy Pycroft in Adelaide
on Tuesday. On Tuesday evening, the ICC said in a statement: "The decision
was based on the evidence given from the umpires, who confirmed that had they
seen the incident they would have taken action immediately, and from Mr
Stephenson [MCC head of cricket John Stephenson], who confirmed the view of MCC
that the television footage showed an artificial substance being transferred to
the ball." In addition to the fine, three demerit points have been added
to the disciplinary record of du Plessis for what was deemed a first offence.
If du Plessis reaches four or more demerit points within a two-year period,
they will be converted into suspension points and he would face a ban. Cricket
South Africa has confirmed that du Plessis, who had been represented by CSA's
legal counsel via teleconference, would appeal the verdict.

An appeal would require the
matter to be heard from the beginning by a judicial commissioner, who can then
increase, decrease or amend the sanction in accordance with the punishments for
the particular breach. The maximum penalty for a level 2 breach is a 100% match
fee fine and two suspension points, which equates to being banned for one Test.
In essence, du Plessis would therefore be risking a ban by attempting to clear
his name.

There was to be more –
Guardian reports that, South Africa’s notoriously heavy-handed security guard
Zunaid Wadee on Monday smashed a television reporter against a glass window for
daring to ask du Plessis — who has previously been convicted of ball tampering. The ugly
confrontation at Adelaide airport where Nine reporter Will Crouch was
repeatedly shouldered and had his microphone knocked out of his hands and
kicked along the ground, was hardly a surprise following a boil over in
Johannesburg earlier this year, where Wadee and du Plessis took it in turns to
engage in some argy bargy with a fan. It was reported in Afrikaans newspaper
Rapport that du Plessis sent Wadee up to a corporate box at the Wanderers
ground to deal with a supporter who had been hurling verbal abuse at the
Proteas’ dressing room during a Test match capitulation against England. Wadee
allegedly got involved in a physical scuffle with the man before ordering him
down to meet an angry du Plessis face-to-face.

Getting back to that infamous incident at Chepauk, during
the Indian innings, the maligned vaseline incident took place. Lever, who
took five for 59 in the innings (two of them on the previous day) was reported
by umpire Reuben to be carrying on his person a strip of surgical gauze
impregnated with vaseline. Umpire considered it to be a breach of Law 46. The
M.C.C. authorities did not deny the presence of the offending strip of gauze,
but offered an explanation for its use. Their version of how it came to be
discovered by the umpire did, however, conflict with that of Mr Reuben. The
umpire said that it came adrift while Lever was delivering the ball. M.C.C., on
the other hand, claimed that Lever found it a hindrance and discarded it
himself.

Ken Barrington, the M.C.C. manager, said that while
there had been a technical breach of the law governing fair and unfair play,
the offence was totally unintentional. At a press conference the following day,
the rest day, the captain and manager emphasised in further defence of Lever
that the gauze strips were not worn until after lunch and that by then England
had made such large inroads into the Indian innings, that such unfair methods
were quite unnecessary. During that tour, Indian captain Bishan Singh
Bedi, had suspicions that Lever had used
polishing agent of some kind even during the Delhi test, when he routed
Indians. Whatever it be, it was laid rest more because it was a breach
committed by the English and perhaps Indian Board was not all that strong those
days. Those of us who saw the match those days believed : Lever was
unplayable; Indians fished out side the off and there was something that aided
the prodigious moment of the ball when Lever bowled. Lever took 26
wickets in that series but never reproduced anything closer later.

If swing bowling was an art and he could do it so well in
India, why the ball never swung such in his own place in much more favourable
circumstances ! – Tony Greig had to
say this of Vaseline incident :
- In his wisdom, our physiotherapist decided that he should
do what marathon runners do, that is put some Vaseline-impregnated gauze into
the eyebrows of the bowlers. By doing so, it would channel the sweat down the
side of the eye, as opposed to allowing it to go into the eyes. Well, I can
tell you that it was a very silly thing to do because under the laws of the
game,if you introduce a foreign substance onto the ball it is
clearly cheating. Statistics
reveal that out of his 73 test wickets in 21; 26 came in first 5 in that debut
series !!! ~ was that poetic justice, he played his last Test against
India at Leeds in 1986 when India won by massive 279 runs.

PS: Vaseline is a brand of
petroleum jelly based products owned by Anglo-Dutch company Unilever. The
Vaseline name is considered generic in Portuguese and Spanish speaking
countries, where the Unilever products are called Vasenol. In India, the
product perhaps did not need any further advertising, and sold well enriching
the coffers of its makers !